Some quick observations about Kings of Tort

The parts of the book that are from Dawson’s perspective (not written in first person, but sufficiently personal that it talks about what he thought) have an insider’s view of how the decisions were made in the investigation and in plea bargaining. There is some newsworthy stuff in the November-December 2007 timeframe, particularly about Joey Langston (describing the timing of when he realized he was toast) and Trent Lott (describing the kid-gloves ways that Greenlee and Dawson dealt with him in December of 2007 when they wanted to know about the call to DeLaughter. The book also goes out of the way to say Lott’s resignation was an oddly timed coincidence having nothing to do with the Scruggs cases) There’s also newsworthy stuff describing the plea bargaining with Keker.

There’s a lot missing– nothing about the Jones sanctions hearings (for instance, nothing about Judge Lackey’s dramatic testimony), nothing about the bizarre courtroom scenes before DeLaughter at the end of Wilson, and, with the sole exception of Dawson (possible other exceptions– Judge Lackey and Balducci), no serious attempt to understand or make into vivid characters the subjects of the book.

Basic facts are there pretty much, though usually at rough-outline level. The political views of Alan Lange don’t really affect it, although his views of the Minor case are strongly and clearly stated. With the exception of the Dawson-focused parts, the writing can be tough sledding, but there is definitely news in the book for Scruggs case aficionados.

Oh, and asbestos has “shards” not “chards.”

I have a brief walk on part as a blogger, as does Lotus. Alan Lange is of course described as the center of the Scruggs-blogging world.